Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
) Case No. 2:18-cv-204 Plaintiff , )
) Judge Travis R. McDonough v. )
) Magistrate Judge Clifton L. Corker CONNIE HICKS, doing business as A )
NEW IMAGE WEIGHT LOSS, )
)
Defendant . ) ORDER
On June 6, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Clifton L. Corker filed his Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Corker concluded that default judgment is appropriate in this case and found that “Plaintiff has established that Defendant is not in compliance with the internal revenue laws and is willfully and systematically ignoring her obligation to comply.” (Doc. 16, at 5.) Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Corker recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and award the permanent injunctive relief detailed in the Report and Recommendation. ( Id. at 5–6.)
Neither party filed timely objections to Magistrate Judge Steger’s Report and Recommendation. [1] Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a reviewed the Report and *2 Recommendation, as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Corker’s well-reasoned conclusions. The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and order of permanent injunction (Doc. 12) and AWARDS the permanent injunctive relief detailed in the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16).
AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER.
/s/ Travis R. McDonough TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE when neither party objects to those findings”). Even taking into account the three additional days for service provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), the period in which Plaintiff could timely file any objections has now expired.
2
[1] Magistrate Judge Corker specifically advised the parties that they had 14 days in which to object to the Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive his right to appeal. (Doc. 16, at 6); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 148– 51 (1985) (noting that “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard,